|
Harry Potter & Goblet of Fire video quality problem ?
Am i the only one who notice.....but is the video quality of this release the worst of all 4 Harry Potter DVD's?
I watch the 3rd right before watching Goblet of Fire....and right at the beginning I notice a big diffence. Not only that, but all other Harry Potter were 5.1 EX...but not this one. And the weird thing is that Goblet of Fire cost more money than any other Harry Potter. I paid 19$ (all in CAD) for the first, 15$ for the second and 12$ for the third. All of them with 2 Discs. Now this one, I had to pay 30$ for the 2 Disc edition. I feel like I was ripped off by Warner...... |
Maybe if you described how it is different from the other releases, someone could either agree or disagree with you.
|
I am not usually a nit picker when it comes to video quality, but I did notice some problems with my one discer. The first thing that I noticed was digitization of the Weasley house at the beginning of the movie. It was very pixelated. The other big thing I noticed was a hang in the movie during the dragon chase scene. Anyone else notice these?
|
Another site I visit gave the video only a 6/10. I may pick this up today and this is disappointing if WB dropped the ball when they are usually so consistent.
|
It seemed that the first 20 minutes didn't look too hot but it got better after that. Nothing to write home about. I don't think any of the Potter transfers have been terribly impressive.
|
DVDVerdict.com gave the two-discer a 98/100 for video quality.
|
From DVDFile.com
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...=5350&Itemid=3
The Video: How Does The Disc Look? The Goblet of Fire’s theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is presented in anamorphic video. I found this to be a rather odd transfer; it’s not quite as good as previous Potter DVDs. Modest edge halos are present. Finely grained textures aren’t quite as sharp as I’ve come to expect from Warner Home Video. And yet small object detail remains very good; faces in long shots are most frequently quite recognizable. Shadow detail is excellent, particularly noticeable in the opening sequence set at night. Flesh tones are very natural during scenes that are well lit. The filmmakers play with the palette trough the film, sometimes imparting a bluish or greenish cast; those scenes should not affect your opinion of the color accuracy. I didn’t notice any intrusive film grain, but there was something granular about the presentation, maybe a touch of mosquito noise around boundaries. I can’t quite put my finger on it . . . sometimes the images are pristine, sometimes there is a slight hint of messiness in the transfer that simply isn’t up to the high standards I’ve come to expect from Warner. |
I've seen reviews on a few sites which comment on the less that great picture quality..........
|
I was disappointed in the quality as well.
Not to open up a "conspiracy" type can of worms, but with the HD version scheduled for release, anyone think they may have dumbed this one down to make that one look all the more appealing/worth the upgrade? It is a big release, and if sites are going to do side by side comparisons between regaular and HD, what better example than the same film. |
Damn WB, friend bought it and watched it last night. Picture quality sucks, especially for a blockbuster movie. Contrast was barely there, especially in the long shots. I was going to buy this movie too, but the crap they're putting out, they won't be getting my hard earned money. Who wants to watch a dvd, that has a crappy video transfer? It bugged the heck out of me that I couldn't concentrate on the movie anymore, this movie looked good on the big screen.
|
Originally Posted by Brooklyn
I was disappointed in the quality as well.
Not to open up a "conspiracy" type can of worms, but with the HD version scheduled for release, anyone think they may have dumbed this one down to make that one look all the more appealing/worth the upgrade? It is a big release, and if sites are going to do side by side comparisons between regaular and HD, what better example than the same film. |
I noticed the transfer wasn't that great too, it seemed alot of the darker scenes were very murky when compared to other "dark movies" like Batman.
|
Originally Posted by Brooklyn
I was disappointed in the quality as well.
Not to open up a "conspiracy" type can of worms, but with the HD version scheduled for release, anyone think they may have dumbed this one down to make that one look all the more appealing/worth the upgrade? It is a big release, and if sites are going to do side by side comparisons between regaular and HD, what better example than the same film. |
I was just thinking about this the other night. I got the 1-disc version and it just doesn't look very good. It's dark and not very clear.
|
I rented the one disc and didnt have any problems. 32 inch direct view tv.
|
Well.....at least I wasn't imagining it!
Thanks for the confirmation guys! |
I watched this last night and thought that the image was very dark (even for a dark movie), especially when compared to the deleted scenes.
|
Yeah, the video quality was nasty, I thought there was something wrong with my settings. I'm kind of glad I accidently bought the cheap 1-disc version now, at least I feel less "ripped off".
|
Yep, agree with the descriptions from the others as well... The darker scenes were very tough to see some details.
|
My roomate and I watched this together. He knows nothing about dvd tansfers and such and the first thing he commented on was how grainy and unclear the picture was.
|
Originally Posted by Mike Long
I watched this last night and thought that the image was very dark (even for a dark movie), especially when compared to the deleted scenes.
Still, the transfer isn't terrible. It's just not as good as it should have been. I too watched Azkaban just before this one and was surprised at the murky look of some of the dark scenes. |
not just the deleted scenes...but if you check out the trailer on the second disc, it is clearly a better picture. more details on the dragon and more color too. though i'm sure the compression for the trailer was far less considering its only a minute or so compared to the whole movie.
|
I only really noticed it for about the first 10-15 minutes of the movie. after that either i got used to it, or it went away. Basically it lasted up till they went to hogwarts after the world cup.
|
I remember the first Harry Potter film was very grainy. At the time, they tried to say it was difficult to get that lengthy of a film on a DVD without loss. Maybe so, but I think they can do better at this point (weren't the theatrical LOTR movies on one-disc?). The thing that bugged me about the DVD, was that my DVD player not only had the black letter boxing (yes, I still have a 4:3 TV, even though it is HD), but it put light grey bars on the top and bottom around the letterboxing. Very annoying, since my attention was drawn to the grey bars more than the movie. Luckily, I had a DVD recorder hooked up as well, so I just popped it in there. Worked fine.
|
I viewed this on my Infocus 4805 projector system Saturday morning. The word for the transfer, as indicated by the reviewer above, is "inconsistent". It's not *terrible* or anything; but the contrast just seems to require different levels at different points in the movie in order to delineate shadow detail. (Which still remains a little "murky" for a few scenes.) I really doubt that WB actually expected us to have to adjust our contrast levels three times (or more) during the course of the movie; so I have to say that something is wrong with the transfer. (And I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that this will be one of the first HD-DVD's in the marketplace ...)
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.